The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:move cats to articles, hidden. There seems to be no strong objection to implementing this proposal and much support. There was also discussion of deleting some of these categories but not wide enough support for it here that I can call that a consensus. However the idea of re-nominating some of them in smaller groups for deletion was brought up, and I think it's a good one. delldot∇. 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Change the guidelines for these categories to prescribe that the category be placed on the article, not on the talk page.
Nominator's rationale: There was a discussion in 2007 that ended with the conclusion that these categories should be placed on talk pages. This was prior to the implementation of Category:Hidden categories. Placing these maintenance categories on the talk page creates an odd exception to our standard practices and makes the page text very awkward (it's easy to accidentally archive one of these templates). I think it should be fairly uncontroversial to move the categories from the talk page to the article page, but I'd like to know if there are any reasons not to do so first. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal. These categories, while self-referential in a way, are not like Category:Start-Class Baseball articles and other gnome categories that are useful only for geeky background processing of some sort, but have nothing to do with article corrections or disputes. Such categories do belong on the talk page. Yet the categories at issue here are like Category:All articles with dead external links and other cleanup (dispute/fix) categories, and (now that they can be hidden from casual-reader display) obviously do belong on the article page, not the talk page. The reason they were moved to the talk page was that in this few cases the issues flagged by them for cleanup were not considered to quite be "defining" facts, and it was thought that their presence might be distracting to readers. No longer a valid issue. Moving them to the talk page was a work-around for a problem that has ceased to exist. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. So the proposal is to move them to the article page but make them hidden categories? Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It looks like most (all?) are already hidden, actually. And some are primarily used on talk pages, while others are primarily used on articles. And still others have mixed usage. The idea is to standardize. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As long as these are hidden, I don't see a problem with (formally, by convention) moving these to the article page now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Year of birth/death missing are already hidden categories on the article page, but I support the idea of those that are on the talkpage (to move them to hidden on the article page). Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
First of all: All four "Year of... missing" cats are ALREADY in article space. There shouldn't be in the list above!
Secondly, before doing any other moves we have to discuss seriously: Are the rest of categories really needed?
I think it's a general belief that we use these categories not in all cases. Otherwise, we ll end up asking for the dater of birth on 300,000 articles.
There is a hell of there between YOB missing and YOB unknown. The distinction really helps to see if we really checked and the year os really unknown or just unknown to the author of the article i.e. missing.
Do we really need "Place of..." Is anyone maintaining them?
There is a big confusion between YOB missing and DOB missing too. People add DOB missing if the date is missing additionally to the year, which is incorrect. DOB missing has to be added in articles that the year is known.
DOB missing (living people): Another tragedy here. Most of the cases added to musician and stars, violating WP:BLP rules on private information. In most of the cases the date is missing because the person doesn't want it to be known.
Conclusion? I think we shouldn't be hasty to do any changes and give this subject more publicity. For me the key point is if we really want to keep maintaining this stuff, if we can find a way to control it, reduce wrong categorisation. Otherwise, it's easy to play around this these categories. We can move them in a few hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather sweeping to say that , most people are not particularly coy about their birthdays, pace recent "identity theft" panics. RichFarmbrough, 03:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Regarding your first point—it's worthwhile to nevertheless discuss the issue here to confirm that there is consensus for placing these on the article page, since there have been discussions in the past where consensus was to place these on the talk page. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help Can someone help me to replace DOB missing and DOB missing (living people) with YOB missing (living people) from pages that the year of birth is missing? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Querey I think this highlights a gap, while the presentation of "talk" and article is ideally separated, the functionality isn't. However for the sake of argument if we migrate these to exclusively the article space (as hidden cats), is the proposal that we use the cats explicitly as we do for "DoB missing" or via tags, infoboxen, persondata, or a new born/died template? RichFarmbrough, 03:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Convert place of death unknown to a normal cat. there are only 189 members, and it seems non-gnomish. RichFarmbrough, 03:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the rest of the unknown cats. No value in them. The article/infobox should make it clear that it is unknown, one way or another..RichFarmbrough, 03:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
What's the reason to record whose place of death we won't be able to add? IMO, we should delete all the "place of..." cats. The "date of..." could be workable only if there was a group of people really working on that and the cats weren't added by any editor without a plan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could advertise the discussion a bit to get more feedback? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Some of these are generated by the template {{BD}} alias {{lifetime}}; also some more complicated templates (which i do not use). There is a useful distinction between "missing" and "unknown": missing means that it is known but not to WP. Unknown means that no one knows it - usually in the case of historical persons from long ago. I would suggest that this be relisted on a current CFD page and the discussion flagged up on the template talk pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I support the proposed conversion to hidden mainspace categories, I agree with Maglioditis that additional discussion with a view toward deleting the less-than-useful categories would be appropriate (most of the 'unknown' categories seem especially unnecessary—what is the use of indicating via a category that information is not just missing but unknown). I think that these should be relisted (and tagged) in smaller nominations grouped by type of information (date of birth/death, place of birth/death, year of birth/death). -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 02:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. CMX is ambiguous and the proposed name matches the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 02:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find that confusing. The Versus fighting games cat should be changed to 'Fighting games' never mind the other way round! Szzuk (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename parent category per Szzuk. By definition fighting games are one character VS another, the extra word is needless. Someoneanother 01:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Indeed this could have been speedied originally. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename. There have been a lot of these going through WP:CFDS lately; that's probably the best forum for them at this stage now that a naming convention for A.F. categories seems to have been settled on.Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: - After a massive discussion the football/soccer/football (soccer) page was named Assocation football. All associated pages should reflect that I believe Cls14 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename under criterion C2.C. I am currently in the process of checking each of the subcategories of Category:Association football and nominating them at WP:CFD/S to be renamed, but I hadn't gotten to the players category yet. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename, as per. nominator & speedy criteria C2C (cat:Association football) lil2mas (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Another award category. The article has a complete list broken down by award type. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — ξxplicit 02:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and standard treatment of award categories. The article is good and provides this information in a much better way for an award. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The latter name is shorter and practically has the same semantical meaning. Seems like an easy call. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge for consistency with Category:Truck drivers as the benefit of consistency is greater, in my opinion, than that of being 6 characters shorter. Also, the article Truck driver suggests that "trucker" is American usage only. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good idea to merge but like Black Falcon's idea more. Trucker is pretty American, although it is used in the UK a bit. I'd be more concerned that trucker is a slag term Cls14 (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - 'Truck driver' is better, trucker being US slang; also trucker is a redirect. (The UK term is 'lorry driver'.) Occuli (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a joke to me, made me laugh anyway. Szzuk (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 02:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article, Pro Evolution Soccer (series), and disambiguate from Pro Evolution Soccer, which is merely the first installment in the series. (Category creator not notified because: inactive since 2006) -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that may be excessive disambiguation. Note, for example, the trend that is present in Category:Video game franchises: very few articles use the parenthetical disambiguator "video game series", preferring "series" where there is little or no possibility for confusion. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the Naming conventions for the Video Games WikiProject: WP:NCVG, and it says that "for video game series: Disambiguate by appending "(series)", or, if necessary, "(video game series)". The former is preferable.". I don't like inconsistency, but since there is a naming convention already and that in this case where Pro Evolution Soccer, isn't anything other than a game, using only "(series)" would work. But FIFA (see nomination below), should have "(video game series)" appended. lil2mas (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (shorter version, per Black Falcon's rationale). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, should be derived from the category title that it is the video game series we're talking about. FIFA is the top governing body of association football, so FIFA (series) could also mean "series of matches", "series of a TV-documentary", etc... Propose move to Category:FIFA (video game series) instead, the same should be done with the main article! =) lil2mas (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it could be helpful to move the article to FIFA (video game series); if there is consensus to move it in this manner, then I would definitely support renaming the category to match. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Theilert here. Fifa series wouldn't mean much to me at first glance and I am an association football fan and have a reasonable knowlege of games consoles. Cls14 (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; repropose cat. rename and move article, per Theilert/lil2mas. This is one case where the "make the category match the article" flow badly needs to go in the opposite of the more common direction. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Neutral on "Category:FIFA (video game series)" idea; I don't see any dire need to replicate article disambiguation style in category names where this isn't needed, and "Category:FIFA video game series" seems clear enough. That said, I won't keel over and die if it's renamed to "Category:FIFA (video game series)", which as someone suggested should be a new proposal maybe. And the article should definitely be renamed (either by just doing it or by going through WP:RM) because "FIFA (series)" has too many plausible interpretations, as noted above. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 23:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename now to new proposal, as the article has been moved as well... lil2mas (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, lack of consensus at the article move discussion, and the category should ideally follow the name of the article. Someone please explain where the ambiguity is? What other series named FIFA is there? If there is another one, we certainly don't have an article on it. Miremare 01:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename all, as per. nominator & speedy criteria C2C (cat:Futsal in... & cat:Sports competitions in...) lil2mas (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't seem to have the ability to start moving them. Is it too early? There's no tab at the top of the articles :-S Cls14 (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories cannot be moved in the same way as pages in other namespaces, but there is no need to move them manually as they will be moved by a bot after the discussion is closed. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename all: Yes, this is another C2 C speedy. Are nominators being overly cautious for a reason? I'm more used to speedy rename being abused not avoided. :-) — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 23:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We almost never categorize real people for their appearance or mention in a book or other form of media. Just as we don't categorize actors by the film they appeared in, we don't categorize other people by the book they are mentioned in, because doing so would lead to vast overcategorization. If one of these categories were created for every annual version of various versions of the Who's Who books, certain individuals would have a huge mass of categories, because most people get listed year after year after year until they die. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nebraska in 1940 ... a splendidly random choice. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Funny but not appropriate :-) Cls14 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
